and many more benefits!

Find us on Facebook

GMAT Club Timer Informer

Hi GMATClubber!

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

Hide Tags

Show Tags

19 Mar 2010, 16:19

2

This post wasBOOKMARKED

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

55%(02:55) correct
45%(01:35) wrong based on 202 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Few businesses will voluntarily implement environmental rotection measures that benefit the public if those measures reduce profitability. Even though such measures may cost less to implement than the total value of their benefits to society, the company making the decision bears all of the cost and receives little, if any, of the benefit. For example, XYZ Corporation has for the last 10 years refused to install smokestack filters to reduce the air pollution emitted by its factory, claiming that the cost would be prohibitive. Therefore, if such measures are to be implemented to protect the environment, they must be initiated by government regulation or intervention.The bolded portions of the argument above perform which of the following functions?

1. The first phrase states the conclusion, and the second provides evidence, the truth of which supports the validity of the conclusion2. The first phrase states a premise supporting the conclusion, and the second provides evidence, the falsity of which would disprove the first phrase.3. The first phrase describes a general principle, and the second provides evidence countering that principle.4. The first phrase states a claim supporting the conclusion, but for which no evidence is given, and the second describes an example supporting the conclusion.5. The first phrase states a generalization supporting the conclusion, and the second cites an example supporting that generalization.

Show Tags

21 Mar 2010, 12:20

7

This post receivedKUDOS

Hey All,

Great work on this one. I saw that the "General approach" question got asked on this one, so I thought I'd weigh in. This is an "evaluate the argument" type of question, and nsp is on the right track. Basically, you want to do your total outline WITHOUT PAYING ATTENTION TO THE BOLDS. Once you've done that, you can try to figure out where the bolds fit in with your outline. ALSO, very often, it is enough to simply differentiate between what pieces provide evidence of or support for something else, which are COUNTER-premises, and which are mere claims/conclusions. Let's try that here.

Few businesses will voluntarily implement environmental rotection measures that benefit the public if those measures reduce profitability. Even though such measures may cost less to implement than the total value of their benefits to society, the company making the decision bears all of the cost and receives little, if any, of the benefit. For example, XYZ Corporation has for the last 10 years refused to install smokestack filters to reduce the air pollution emitted by its factory, claiming that the cost would be prohibitive. Therefore, if such measures are to be implemented to protect the environment, they must be initiated by government regulation or intervention.

Conclusion: Measure to protect environment must be initiated by governmentPremises: Biz won't help environment if hurts profits. XYZ = concrete example of that premise.

What you'll see here is that BOTH bolded statements end up in that premise area. Let's see if we can find the answer with that info alone.

The bolded portions of the argument above perform which of the following functions?

1. The first phrase states the conclusion, and the second provides evidence, the truth of which supports the validity of the conclusionPROBLEM: Neither bold is a conclusion.

2. The first phrase states a premise supporting the conclusion, and the second provides evidence, the falsity of which would disprove the first phrase.PROBLEM: Okay. So the general approach breaks down here, because this does describe the two as both types of premises. However, the falsity of the second piece would not disprove the generalization.

3. The first phrase describes a general principle, and the second provides evidence countering that principle.PROBLEM: We don't have any counter-premises here, so this is wrong.

4. The first phrase states a claim supporting the conclusion, but for which no evidence is given, and the second describes an example supporting the conclusion.PROBLEM: Like B, this one comes close. However, the second piece does not support the conclusion, but the premise before it.

5. The first phrase states a generalization supporting the conclusion, and the second cites an example supporting that generalization.ANSWER: There we go, premise, then a derivative premise.

Show Tags

Do you mean in more detail than I provided above? What do you feel is missing? I thought I was comprehensive! : )

-t

Hi Tommy,

Your answers are always comprehensive and we all appreciate them.

What I meant is, sometimes I answer a question wrongly not becuase I don't comprehend the question or passage, but becuase I fail to understand the answer choices. Since there is a vast variety of answer choices (such as A is premise and B is an example; A is a statement that counters the conclusion while B is the conclustion), it is useful for me to study the answer choices first :p Would there be any materials on that? Hope this makes sense to you. Thanks.

Show Tags

09 Apr 2010, 09:09

1

This post receivedKUDOS

Hey Calvin,

Hmm. I think I do understand now. But there isn't really such thing as a comprehensive list of possible answer choices in "Evaluate the Argument" type questions. This is because the answer choices will change for every passage (they're specific to the exact wording of the passage). However, they do break down into a limited number of categories. Generally, every bolded statement will be some variation on a premise, a conclusion, a counter-conclusion, a counter-premise, an assumption (rare), or useless fluff (rare). From there, you simply need to read the passage as carefully as possible.

Show Tags

03 Oct 2010, 11:52

reply2spg wrote:

Few businesses will voluntarily implement environmental rotection measures that benefit the public if those measures reduce profitability. Even though such measures may cost less to implement than the total value of their benefits to society, the company making the decision bears all of the cost and receives little, if any, of the benefit. For example, XYZ Corporation has for the last 10 years refused to install smokestack filters to reduce the air pollution emitted by its factory, claiming that the cost would be prohibitive. Therefore, if such measures are to be implemented to protect the environment, they must be initiated by government regulation or intervention.The bolded portions of the argument above perform which of the following functions?

1. The first phrase states the conclusion, and the second provides evidence, the truth of which supports the validity of the conclusion2. The first phrase states a premise supporting the conclusion, and the second provides evidence, the falsity of which would disprove the first phrase.3. The first phrase describes a general principle, and the second provides evidence countering that principle.4. The first phrase states a claim supporting the conclusion, but for which no evidence is given, and the second describes an example supporting the conclusion.5. The first phrase states a generalization supporting the conclusion, and the second cites an example supporting that generalization.

I fell for B because I thought if the evidence was false then the argument would not have stood its ground. But when I look at the the first statement carefully "Few businesses will voluntarily implement environmental rotection measures that benefit the public if those measures reduce profitability." the falsity of the evidence would not disprove the first phase. The First phrase says FEW companies would invest money in Env. Prot. Measures if the profitability is impacted and which would still hold good even if the evidence is false.

Which leaves the option E.

I am still not very clear on the word Generalization but will try to figure out.
_________________

Show Tags

03 Oct 2010, 11:56

TommyWallach wrote:

Hey All,

Great work on this one. I saw that the "General approach" question got asked on this one, so I thought I'd weigh in. This is an "evaluate the argument" type of question, and nsp is on the right track. Basically, you want to do your total outline WITHOUT PAYING ATTENTION TO THE BOLDS. Once you've done that, you can try to figure out where the bolds fit in with your outline. ALSO, very often, it is enough to simply differentiate between what pieces provide evidence of or support for something else, which are COUNTER-premises, and which are mere claims/conclusions. Let's try that here.

Few businesses will voluntarily implement environmental rotection measures that benefit the public if those measures reduce profitability. Even though such measures may cost less to implement than the total value of their benefits to society, the company making the decision bears all of the cost and receives little, if any, of the benefit. For example, XYZ Corporation has for the last 10 years refused to install smokestack filters to reduce the air pollution emitted by its factory, claiming that the cost would be prohibitive. Therefore, if such measures are to be implemented to protect the environment, they must be initiated by government regulation or intervention.

Conclusion: Measure to protect environment must be initiated by governmentPremises: Biz won't help environment if hurts profits. XYZ = concrete example of that premise.

What you'll see here is that BOTH bolded statements end up in that premise area. Let's see if we can find the answer with that info alone.

The bolded portions of the argument above perform which of the following functions?

1. The first phrase states the conclusion, and the second provides evidence, the truth of which supports the validity of the conclusionPROBLEM: Neither bold is a conclusion.

2. The first phrase states a premise supporting the conclusion, and the second provides evidence, the falsity of which would disprove the first phrase.PROBLEM: Okay. So the general approach breaks down here, because this does describe the two as both types of premises. However, the falsity of the second piece would not disprove the generalization.

3. The first phrase describes a general principle, and the second provides evidence countering that principle.PROBLEM: We don't have any counter-premises here, so this is wrong.

4. The first phrase states a claim supporting the conclusion, but for which no evidence is given, and the second describes an example supporting the conclusion.PROBLEM: Like B, this one comes close. However, the second piece does not support the conclusion, but the premise before it.

5. The first phrase states a generalization supporting the conclusion, and the second cites an example supporting that generalization.ANSWER: There we go, premise, then a derivative premise.

Hope that helps!

-t

Hey Tommy,

Its always a pleasure to read your explanations. I wish I can get to this level of clarity while solving the Verbal questions.

I have a quick question for you? In case the option B would have been as below without the falsity part, would B be a better answer than E? "The first phrase states a premise supporting the conclusion, and the second provides evidence"
_________________

Show Tags

07 Apr 2011, 18:45

subhashghosh wrote:

The answer is E.

Don't you guys think that the argument should start with "Only a few", rather than "few", because i feel that the latter one is giving a positive impresssion that there are some companies which can ignore profitability for general good.